legal-mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds return-field details and the public-records limitation, but it does not explain open-world implications (e.g., absence of results does not equal no record). No contradiction with annotations, but the openWorldHint is left undisclosed in prose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by return details and use cases. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers return fields, use cases, and the public-records limitation. Yet with no output schema and an openWorldHint, it omits handling of empty results and whether parameters are combinable. Adequate but with noticeable gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's search-by phrasing mirrors the parameters but does not clarify whether they can be combined or if at least one is expected (all are optional). Marginal added value over the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's function: 'Search public court records database by individual name, case number, or state jurisdiction.' It enumerates return fields (parties, case type, filing date, judgment, docket number) and use cases, making the purpose unambiguous even without sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use for background checks, legal research, or case tracking' provides concrete application contexts, and 'Limited to public records' sets a boundary. However, no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references exist (no siblings), so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.